Statutory discretion over change of agricultural year must be exercised non-arbitrarily; refusal without proper legal basis was invalid.

A statutory discretion to consent to a change of previous agricultural year under the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act is not unfettered: it must be exercised consistently with the purpose of the provision, on a non-arbitrary basis, and with consent ordinarily granted unless exceptional reasons justify refusal. Judicial review focuses on the decision-making process, and failure to apply that legal standard renders the refusal illegal. On the facts discussed, the authority did not consider the request on that basis, so the refusal of consent was vitiated and the order was liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to consent to a change of the assessee's previous agricultural year under section 2(d) of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, was illegal for want of proper exercise of discretion and was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The proviso to section 2(d) confers discretion on the authority to permit a change in the previous agricultural year after an option has once been exercised, but it does not lay down express guidelines for when consent should be granted or refused. The discretion, however, is not unfettered: it must be exercised consistently with the purpose of the provision and with the implied rule that consent is to be granted as the norm and refused only in exceptional cases, with conditions if necessary. Judicial review is directed to the decision-making process, and a failure to address the matter on that legal basis amounts to illegality. The impugned order did not consider the matter in that light.

Conclusion: The refusal of consent was vitiated by illegality and the order was liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory discretion to grant or refuse consent is conferred without express guidelines, the authority must exercise it in accordance with the purpose of the provision and on a non-arbitrary basis; failure to do so renders the decision illegal and amenable to judicial review.

---